Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : M.N.RAO
R.Anand Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Co-operative Tribunal-cum-V-Asst Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad - Respondent
W.P. No. 2808/1989
Decided On : 08-07-89
Advocates Appeared :
Mr. V. Tulasi Reddy,Mr. C.P Sarathy
Held : The obligation cast on the Registrar or the Arbitrator by sub-Rule (4) of Rule 49 to decide the dispute by recording a brief note of the evidence of the parties and witnesses consider the evidence adduced before him and pass a decision in accordance with justice, equity and good conscience comes into play only after the Registrar is satisfied that the petition filed before him is not barred by limitation If he is satisfied that the dispute referred to him is not barred by limitation, his duty to decide the matter in the manner laid down by Sub-Rule [4] will arise If at the threshold stage itself a dispute is not entertainable by virtue of its being barred by time, the Registrar is not obliged to render a decision in the manner obligated by subRule (4) Any power conferred on the Registrar Arbitrator by the Act or the Rules cannot be read in conjunction with the provisions of the CP C; that power has to be exercised by him independently
( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the order of the Co-operativetribunal-V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in C. T. A. No. 3/88 allowing the appeal preferred by the fourth respondent setting aside the order of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing), Hyderabad (herein after called as the Arbitrator) in ARC No. 41/87-G dated 30-3-1988.
( 2 ) THE petitioner s father was a member of the third respondent-society-Jublihills Co-operative House Building Society Limited, Hyderabad. After the death of his father the petitioner was admitted as a member; the managing Committee of the society approved the membership of the petitioner on 14-12-82 A letter was received from the third respondent-society on 30-5-82 informing that lots would be drawn for purpose of allotting plots cf he use sites to the members of the society on 20-6-82. A sum of Rs. 3050/- which was required to be paid, according to the petitioner was paid and a receipt was obtained from the society. By a letter dated 6-7-82 the society informed the petitioner that plot No. 57 was provisionally allotted in the name of the pesitioner s father in the draw held on 20-6-82. The entire balance of the amount of Rs. 7,911. 15 (inclusive of registration charges and stamp duty) was paid by the petitioner to the society on 28-11-82 and he has submitted an application with the necessary affidavits :"to transfer the membership accouunt of my late father". Due to over sight, according to the petitioner, the plot was included in the next draw held on 20-12-82 and it was allotted to the fourth respondent. The mistake was realised in August, 1983. By a letter dated 8-8-83 the society informed the fourth respondent :"we wish to bring to your kind attention that in the draw for allotment of plots held oa 26-12-82 due to an administrative error smt. Rekha Bothara was inadvertently allotted a plot No. 57 which had already been allotted earlier to another member. This matter was considered by the Managing Committee at its meeting held on 22-7-88 and they have decided to allot you an alternative plot No. 468 in Block iii area. "a reply was sent on 1-9-83 by the fourth respondent to the Co-operative society informing that she paid the entire amount in respect of plot No. 57 and the letter of the society dated 8-8-83 deciding to allot an alternative plot to her :"is highly illegal, unjust and contrary to the bye-laws of the society apart from violation of the principles of natural justice. "she, therefore, requested the society to cancel the letter dated 8-8-83. Acknowledging the letter of the fourth respondent dated 1-9-83 the society informed her in writing on 11-11-83 :"that in the draw for allotment of plots held on 26-12-82 due to an administrative error you are inadvertently allotted plot No. 57 which has already been allotted earlier to another member. Hence you are allotted plot No. 468 afterwards. The option is given to you either to retain the plot No. 468 or whether your name should be considered for next draw for allotment of plots in Block III subject to availability of plots". The fourth respondent replied on 7-2-84 stating that". . . . . . there are 13 plots vacant and unallotment till this day. Oa my request a list of unallotted plots in Block III was furnished to me. As per the said list plot Nos. 144, 150, 239 and 435 are still not allotted to anybody. I humbly submit that plot No. 150 is similar to plot No. 57 which was earlier allotted to me in all resnects. I, therefore, request you Sir, to kindly allot me the plot No. 150 in exchange for plot No. 57 in Block No. III of Jubli Hills Co-operative house Building Society Limited. "as no reply was received, the fourth respondent once again addressed a letter to the society on 26-12-85 re-iterating her request and stating that she was :"subjected to torture and victimisation. . . . Baing a house wife of an employed person, I cannot challenge me said cancallation of my allotted plot
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.